Native corporations doing well, but problems still loom

Alaska Native corporations have become financial powerhouses in Alaska. In 2010, eight of the 10 top corporations in Alaska, in terms of gross revenues, were owned by Alaska Natives and four of these grossed more than $1 billion, according to Alaska Business Monthly magazine's Top 49er list of companies.Alaska Native corporations have become financial powerhouses in Alaska. In 2010, eight of the 10 top corporations in Alaska, in terms of gross revenues, were owned by Alaska Natives and four of these grossed more than $1 billion, according to Alaska Business Monthly magazine's Top 49er list of companies.

That's good news for Alaska, but there are still problems for the corporation to resolve, and structural issues that could raise other problems down the road.

On the table now is the fact that not all of the 45 million acres due the Native corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act have been transferred 40 years after passage of ANCSA. The biggest land deficiency is in Southeast, where Sealaska Corp. is still working to get a major part of its land entitlement.

There are a lot of reasons for the delays, including budget issues for the U.S. Department of Interior, which must do surveys and other work related to the transfers.

There are other land issues, including village land selection overlaps with state land selections, which are also holding up final title to Native allotments, the 160-acre tracts that individual Natives can own privately once title is cleared.

Another major concern is the dilution and fragmentation of shares as the original 1971 shareholders give or will their shares to children and grandchildren, and as some corporations issue special classes of shares to children born after 1971, the year Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that required the corporations to form.

In 1971 Alaska Natives who were one-fourth Native were eligible to receive 100 shares each in regional as well as village corporations, although some chose to only hold shares in regional corporations. Subsequently, Alaska Natives living outside Alaska were given the option of forming and enrolling in a 13th regional corporation, which many did.

Four decades have now passed since ANCSA was enacted and the initial shares were distributed. Descendents are now receiving shares, given or willed, many of them in small blocks as shares are distributed among descendents. There are also special classes of shares that were distributed by several corporations to children born after 1971, but many of those come with strings.

There are voting restrictions for some, and in other cases the special shares can't be inherited.

All of this creates two kinds of problems, both significant. First, with many young shareholders holding just a handful of shares, it will become more difficult to muster the necessary quorums of shareholders for annual meetings necessary to form boards of directors and address business issues.

This is already a problem for some smaller village corporations.

A related issue is that shareholders with just one or two shares have less of stake, and are often less interested and engaged, in the corporation's affairs or its founding goals, mainly the protection of land.

What both of these mean is that, over time, the corporations will be dominated by their managements.

The corporations have tried to kindle more interest among shareholders with larger dividend payouts. As much as 50 percent of net income for some corporations is devoted to dividends. While money is always an effective tool in keeping people interested, it is less effective in securing a commitment to the long-term goals of preserving lands.

A high percentage of net income devoted to dividends also reduces the amount of cash available to corporations for new investment. This doesn't seem to be a problem now for most Native corporations but it could over time.

A deeper problem is that there will be more Alaska Natives who do not own shares in regional or village corporations. They can still become members of tribal associations but the tribes do not actually own the land, the corporations do.

A worst-case outcome of this is a situation where the 45 million acres of Alaska transferred under the ANCSA settlement are owned by some, but not all, Alaska Natives.

A more subtle manifestation of this is political: Who will advocate for Alaska Natives? Currently the leaders of the corporations who are Natives fill this role. But if the shareholders of corporations move into the minority of Natives, will the corporation leaders feel they still have this mandate?

In the minds of many younger Natives today the corporations are looked at more as financial entities. This is in spite of the fact that Native corporations view their mandates as, first, to protect their land and, second, to improve the social and economic status of their shareholders.

The corporations are also careful to point out they are not social service agencies. Most, however, have corporate divisions or nonprofit affiliates that are dedicated to cultural preservation and education.

Still, the current Native corporation leaders are feeling a challenge from a younger generation, and this is something that must be dealt with.

It's an issue of major importance to the entire state because of the economic importance of the Native corporations and the stake all Alaskans have in their future stability and prosperity.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

I'd been a resident for a number of years when ANCSA passed. My husband and I were young and idealistic. We were for it, though bothered by the number of Outside law firms involved in the negotiations and setting up the corps. The original intent of the act was to do the right thing and to be fair about it. From time to time reports of mismanagement (and a few more years observing human nature) caused us to rethink the whole issue. Thanks, Tim, for this informative article and for bringing the non-Native residents up to date on what's happening.

great article, tx, too bad native villages and people have to beg state and Fed governments to get help on fuel, housing etc, when Native Corp and doing so well at least for all the middle men taking the money in the native's name.

We fought for civil rights in my generation - to abolish racism amongst others. So Alaska natives were given/took back lands from the "white man" plus just shy of a billion dollars. So be it.

Why then, now are Natives allowed to segregate? If a white man segregated, he'd be called a racist and have charges against him. If a Native does, it's culture expression. When I was a kid, blacks were not allowed the same resturants, drinking fountains, bathrooms, etc...and hospitals. Now, in 2011, a racist group is allowed BY LAW!! to have segregation. They have a hospital that Sen. Stevens had built with Federal funds and Natives pay almost nothing for service and we non- natives are not allowed!!! Just like the good ole days,eh?

Look at the village of Tyonek....if you are white, you are not allowed. You are tolerated if you are there to do them something that they need, then you are gone. I know, a family member had to service the fire stations for the borough there.

Makes me ill. All my life I have worked by thought and deed to combat prejudice. So here we are, legislated racism....sad.

Forgot to mention; when we were foster parents, we were not allowed to have native children - it was required they have natives. Couldn't believe it....kids abused buy their parents and it was more important as to my race than caring for their kids....too surreal.

At one point ANCs 8(a) firms were eligible to receive sole source 8(a) contracts regardless of dollar size, with no upper limit, but in 2010 that was reduced to $20 million per contract. Now, Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and John McCain, R-Ariz want more ANCSA reductions implemented on ANCs.

"Indian reservations and Alaska Native Villages suffer from some of the worst poverty in this country, with unemployment levels in excess of 60%. ANCSA is the power base for the ANCs having the primary responsibility for promoting economic development. On the premise that it is both appropriate and necessary to use the Federal government's massive procurement activity to help jump-start reservation economies, Congress has given tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) unique rights in the Federal procurement process..."
(http://www.ago.noaa.gov/ago/acquisition/docs/alaska_native_contracting.pdf)

This is unlimited financial power that some senators want to take away from ANCs, for various reasons, one of which ANCs knowledge of these powerful economic rights.

The US Congress again apologized (www.fedbiz.us) to the entire American Indian and Alaskan Tribes Nation with seven statements that were barried in the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, this was considered to be a public announcement. One of those statements were "recognizes that there have been years of official depredations, ill-conceived policies, and the breaking of covenants by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes"(H.R. 3326 111th Cong. Section 8113(a)(4).(5); see also Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2010. Public Law No. 111.118)

ANCs unique 8(a) program implementing economic development, unlimited employment, health and world wide investmentssupporting economic gain for the villiages of listed under the 200 corporations. Power of this type must be used or the lost for better living will be unknown.

What Can Happen Now!
8(a) firms owned by tribes and ANCs may still receive sole source contracts regardless of dollar amount.
Opportunity for the youth is in the power of the ANCs implementations.